|
Last month, Russian authorities arrested Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the
richest man in Russia, on charges of fraud, forgery and tax evasion.
Khodorkovsky owns roughly 44% of the Russian oil giant Yukos and is
a vocal opponent of the Putin administration. Because of this (ostensibly),
his arrest has been portrayed here in the west as a political move
on the part of President Vladimir Putin. The State Department even
went so far as to say that the arrest raises “serious questions
about the rule of law in Russia.”
Personally, I am embarrassed to be a citizen of this country, one
that apparently condemns the arrest of criminals simply because they
are rich. Granted, Khodorkovsy happens to be an opponent of the Russian
president, but that does not mean that is the cause for his arrest.
When Robert Downey Jr. (part of “liberal Hollywood”) was
arrested, did other countries condemn the arrest as a political move
on the part of President Bush? Do we question the rule of law when
corporate criminals are arrested or do we question the law when they
are allowed to go free, destroying the lives of their employees as
they go? If Khodorkovsky were an American and evidence came out that
he was involved in illegal activities, do you think that the American
people would rather nothing happen or that he be brought to trial
for those charges? Not to mention that Vladimir Putin is the president
of an enormous country, he may not even have known about the arrest
until after it happened, let alone have orchestrated it; he has bigger
problems to take care of than tax evasion.
What’s sad is not that Khodorkovsky’s lawyers are portraying
this as a human rights violation (they have already gone to the UN,
and are threatening to go to the European Court of Human Rights),
but that people are actually listening to them. And it’s especially
ridiculous that our government is taking official stances on minor
internal affairs in Russia. In my opinion, Russian Foreign Minister
Igor Ivanov states it very well: “The United States is trying
to place the actions of the judicial organs of Russia in doubt. This
is interference in the judicial affairs of another state that is not
acceptable, and should not be, in the normal terms of democratic society.”
Is it really the State Department’s place to pass judgment on
Russia’s enforcement of Russian laws for Russian citizens? Does
the State Department think that laws against fraud, forgery and tax
evasion are unjust, are human rights violations? If that were the
case, why didn’t “the State Department express its anxiety
about any of those noisy (corporate) scandals (involving Washington),
did not interfere in the judicial process,” as Ivanov points
out?
Perhaps these concerns are not actually about human rights in Russia,
but something else. Am I the only person in this country who notices
that our government — which consists of rich people, many from
the oil business — is protesting the arrest of an oil tycoon?
Maybe we are getting this sob story about human rights and political
motivation because people in our government don’t want to see
the corrupt rich endangered. Big business, after all, is not limited
to this country, but transcends borders. Maybe there are connections
between Yukos and Halliburton or Bechtel. Why is the media focusing
on Khodorkovsky’s support for the Russian opposition instead
of investigating whether or not our leaders, who have endangered the
recent gains in US-Russian relations because of this minor issue,
have some sort of vested interest in the Russian business oligarchies?
Why would the Bush Administration support this white collar criminal
instead of the government of Russia, an institution which has taken
its time, to say the least, in investigating the corrupt business
world of that country.
This odd show of support for a petty (albeit rich) criminal by our
government raises a lot of questions for me, and hopefully it will
for others as well. Unfortunately, the media of this country doesn’t
seem to care much for the truth and is instead content to play along
with the as yet unjustified stance of the State Department. The only
conclusion I can come to is that the wealthy of this country, as represented
by this administration, have some interest in maintaining the status
quo in Russia, a status quo of shady business deals, a few ultra-rich
monopolists, and government non-intervention in corporate crime. Russian
authorities have finally taken a small step toward changing that status
quo, and I, for one, am glad they have.
|
